The Day that Lasted 21 Years | #documentary #free

 

No English subtitles.

 

“U.S. meddling in South American politics is starkly uncovered in The Day That Lasted 21 Years…An eye-opening documentary whose merits deserve fest and ancillary support.” – Jay Weissberg, VARIETY
“A fascinating delve into American governmental and CIA plans to disrupt the democratic leaders of Brazil, which eventually would lead to the 1964 coup d’état, The Day That Lasted 21 Years (O dia que durou 21 anos) offers a gripping insight into political machinations.” – Mark Adams, SCREENDAILY

Taking Guns From Fucktards: More Please

 

Three kinds of gun laws save lives

“Our research suggests that focusing on the “WHO” (i.e., who has access to firearms) is more impactful than focusing on the WHAT (i.e. what types of firearms are allowed). Based on these findings, the priorities for state policy makers should be: (1) universal background checks; (2) laws that prohibit gun purchase or possession by people with a history of violence (a conviction); and (3) extreme risk protection order laws that provide a mechanism for removing guns from people at high risk of violence to themselves or others.”

Provoking Russia to the Apocalypse? | #StopNato

 

Norman Solomon is kind of a wild card in the alternative media sphere. Seems independent, not on any obvious payroll.

 

 

Pelosi and McConnell: Cranking Up Bipartisan Madness for NATO

What leadership looks like | #TulsiGabbard

 

THIS is why Tulsi Gabbard needs to be in the debates: she will tell the truth despite how unpopular or contorted it’s been with propaganda. She wrote the STOP ARMING TERRORISTS ACT, which could NOT get passed in the US Congress.

Send her a dollar or more to ensure that she makes the requirement to be on the debate stage:

https://www.tulsi2020.com/

Palast: Dems Rigging Primary Elections

 

Does Pelosi’s HR1 Destroy Free Speech in America?

 

I haven’t heard of this “Free Speech Institute” before, but they seem to have their shit together. Recall Pelosi and friends are the ones making it illegal to boycott Israeli products or even talk about it. Something to investigate.

Analysis of H.R. 1 (Part One)

&

ACLU Concurs: ACLU LETTER TO HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE ON H.R. 1

 

Executive Summary

Specifically, H.R. 1 would:

• Unconstitutionally regulate speech that mentions a federal candidate or elected official at any time under a severely vague, subjective, and broad standard that asks whether the speech “promotes,” “attacks,” “opposes,” or “supports” (“PASO”) the candidate or official.
• Force groups to file burdensome and likely duplicative reports with the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) if they sponsor ads that are deemed to PASO the president or members of Congress in an attempt to persuade those officials on policy issues.
• Compel groups to declare on these so-called “campaign-related disbursement” reports that their ads are either “in support of or in opposition” to the elected official mentioned, even if their ads do neither. This form of compulsory speech and forcing organizations to declare their allegiance to or against public officials is unconscionable and unconstitutional.
• Force groups to publicly identify certain donors on these reports for issue ads and on the face of the ads themselves. Faced with the prospect of being inaccurately associated with what, by law, would be considered (unjustifiably, in many or most instances) “campaign” ads in FEC reports and disclaimers, many donors will choose simply not to give to nonprofit groups.
• Subject far more issue ads to burdensome disclaimer requirements, which will coerce groups into truncating their substantive message and make some advertising, especially online, practically impossible.
• Focus public attention on the individuals and donors associated with the sponsoring organizations rather than on the communications’ substantive message, thereby exacerbating the politics of personal destruction and further coarsening political discourse.
• Force organizations that make grants to file their own reports and publicly identify their own donors if an organization is deemed to have “reason to know” that a donee entity has made or will make “campaign-related disbursements.” This vague and subjective standard will greatly increase the legal costs of vetting grants and many groups will simply end grant programs.
• Likely eliminate the ability of many employees to make voluntary contributions through employee-funded PACs, which give employees a voice in the political process with respect to issues that affect their livelihoods.
• Effectively prohibit many domestic subsidiaries, and perhaps most corporations with even a single foreign shareholder with voting shares, from making independent expenditures, contributions to super PACs, or contributions to candidates for state and local office, thus usurping the laws in more than half of the states that allow such contributions.This appears to be a thinly veiled artifice to overturn Citizens United and to unconstitutionally accomplish by legislation what congressional Democrats failed to achieve by constitutional amendment in 2014.

• Disproportionately burden the political speech rights of corporations, thereby ending the long-standing parity in the campaign finance law between corporations and unions.
• Increase regulation of the online speech of American citizens while purporting to address the threat of Russian propaganda.
• Expand the universe of regulated online political speech (by Americans) beyond paid advertising to include, apparently, communications on groups’ or individuals’ own websites and e-mail messages.
• Regulate speech (by Americans) about legislative issues by expanding the definition of “electioneering communications” – historically limited to large-scale TV and radio campaigns targeted to the electorate in a campaign for office – to include online advertising, even if the ads are not targeted in any way at a relevant electorate.
• Impose what is effectively a new public reporting requirement on (American) sponsors of online issue ads by expanding the “public file” requirement for broadcast, cable, and satellite media ads to many online platforms. The public file requirements would compel some of the nation’s leading news sources to publish information, which is likely unconstitutional.Both advertisers and online platforms would be liable for providing and maintaining the information required to be kept in these files, which would increase the costs of online advertising, especially for low-cost grassroots movements. Some of these online outlets may decide to discontinue accepting such ads due to the expense of complying with the requirements.The “public file” also may subject (American) organizers of contentious but important political causes like “Black Lives Matter” and the Tea Party to harassment by opponents or hostile government officials monitoring the content, distribution, and sponsorship of their activities.

• Make broadcast, cable, satellite, and Internet media platforms liable if they allow political advertising by prohibited speakers to slip through, thereby driving up the costs of political advertising, especially for online ads where compliance costs are relatively high.
• Impose inflexible disclaimer requirements on online ads that may make many forms of small, popular, and cost-effective ads off-limits for (American) political advertisers.

Snowden Doc Cover-Up at The Intercept? | @Snowden @ggreenwald

 

Is The Intercept An Intelligence Operation? An Ongoing Inquiry

 

Did Omidyar set up The Intercept on behalf of U.S. intelligence, in order to entrap, expose and prosecute whistleblowers? It’s curious: Greenwald was Omidyar’s first hire and he had pretty much exclusive access to Edward Snowden’s NSA treasure trove. When I worked at TI, the Snowden archive was locked in a safe. Omidyar and Greenwald long promised they would make it all available to the public but they never did, and last week, amid staff cuts that will inevitably lead to Omidyar killing the publication, TI announced that the Snowden archive will be sealed off from the public for an undetermined amount of time. So it looks like the most explosive leak in U.S. intelligence history will end up being buried by Omidyar and Greenwald.

9/11 FBI Cover-Up Lawsuit

 

FBI Accused of Omitting Evidence From 9/11 Report

 

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/911-commission.pdf

 

The Young Turks Still Lying | @TYT

 

Gabbard: Stop Cold War Insanity | #TULSI2020

 

link

CNN President: “We are not investigators.” | #FakeNews

The implosion of #Russiagate

 

US media, at least those fed content from deep state sources like CIA and NSA, has collapsed in a smoldering heap. This is a great summation of how Russiagate never really had any verification…

More often, when explosive #Russiagate headlines go sideways, the original outlets simply ignore the new development, leaving the “retraction” process to conservative outlets that don’t reach the original audiences.

This is a major structural flaw of the new fully-divided media landscape in which Republican media covers Democratic corruption and Democratic media covers Republican corruption. If neither “side” feels the need to disclose its own errors and inconsistencies, mistakes accumulate quickly.

 

It’s official: Russiagate is this generation’s WMD

 

We’re at that next devolution: first and wrong. The Russiagate era has so degraded journalism that even once “reputable” outlets are now only about as right as politicians, which is to say barely ever, and then only by accident.

 

This section on DAVID CORN is kind of priceless:

In the program, however, the subject of getting facts right came up and Corn said this was not a time for reporters to be picking nits:

So Democrats getting overeager, overenthusiastic, stating things that may not be [unintelligible] true…? Well, tell me a political issue where that doesn’t happen. I think that’s looking at the wrong end of the telescope.

I wrote him later and suggested that since we’re in the press, and not really about anything except avoiding “things that may not be true,” maybe we had different responsibilities than “Democrats”? He wrote back:

Feel free to police the Trump opposition. But on the list of shit that needs to be covered these days, that’s just not high on my personal list.

 

#FireDavidCorn
#FireMaddow

 

ps

 

Mainstream media is grieving the results of the Mueller investigation.

We get it: It’s hard to swallow the fact that you spent literally years freaking out about something that never happened @RaniaKhalek #MuellerReport pic.twitter.com/6Z9JGWF38R

— In the NOW (@IntheNow_tweet) March 26, 2019